The petition circulated by Mayor Fried, Councilor Weller-Demming and Lewis is dead — at least for now. The reason? Exactly what Michael Byrne cited in a letter today to town clerk Linda Wanat.
Essex County Clerk Chris Durkin says that Byrne was correct about the number of signatures needed and that Wanat had mistakenly used the wrong voting year when calculating the required number of signatures needed. Durkin also tells us that the petitioners had extra signatures, but Wanat stopped counting when they had reached the number she believed was the required number.
Now the petition will be decertified — but expect this man — to take legal action (maybe he’ll do it in song!)
Bennet Zurofsky (pictured) is the attorney/musician who contacted Chris Durkin earlier today on behalf of Mayor Fried, requesting that the question be put on the ballot or else Zurofsky would pursue the matter in Superior Court. Durkin had voiced his intention to put the question on the ballot, but as a result of Byrne’s letter and a call from Linda Wanat, it became evident, says Durkin, that the required number of signatures were not there. Wanat had used 2010 election numbers, rather than the 2009 General Assembly election numbers.
Durkin says although this petition will be decertified, the committee of petitioners can go get the additional required signatures and have them certified and then on September 20th, we can all expect a replay of the council meeting last week — where instead of voting on the ordinance, the same councilors agree to table the issue. If this happens, Durkin would again be considering permitting the referendum within the time frame of the next deadline, Sept. 28. Durkin says Zurofsky may also fight on the basis that the petitioners were given incorrect information.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall at Fried’s manse this weekend.
Which manse is that? The one that is still listed in the MLS for rent, like so many storefronts in his town with the elevated property values due to our walkability? Or the mini-mansion that mayor moneybags moved into recently when downsizing when he could no longer afford the taxes on his original mansion. I suppose, it’s hardly green for two people to live in such a large place, you know, with such heating, cooling and electric waste. That’s quite a large carbon footprint for such a small man.
And what’s with the plethora of bearded lawyers that Fried chooses to associate with. I think we now know why Alan is no longer the town lawyer. It must have been his refusal to grow his hair like Nick and Ira.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvR6d08L3nc
Yawn, again.
OMG. Send in the clowns. Let’s have the next election ASAP to get rid of this crew.
That dude definitely smokes weed.
ASAP isn’t soon enough, oliver.
According to the law, you need 70 days between the certification of the petition and the election (if the council uses the maximum time allotted). So I dint think it can be legally put on the ballot in November. There would have to be a social election.
damn auto spelling correction!
“So I dont think it can be legally put on the ballot in November. There would have to be a special election.”
Oh, haha—-funny bearded man strumming guitar! Way to make your point, Baristanet!
Say, what does the victor in this “Battle Royale” (to quote the Montclair Times) look like, I wonder? Hmm: http://on.fb.me/n6kUqe
Montclair is a total freak show.
I clicked on the (he’ll do it in a song) link, and couldn’t believe my eyes, or ears for that matter. We are in big trouble with this circus.
I agree with Nellie, ASAP is not soon enough.
I am nonplussed. I have nothing to add that could make this any funnier than it already is.
In a remarkably concise manner, the Marsupial has nailed it.
Where did my comment go? This is hilarious!
right where you put it gurl
http://www.baristanet.com/2011/09/byrne-says-not-enough-signatures-on-montclair-election-petition/#comment-265787
Thanks, ROC. I was away last week and came back to see that it just gets more and more bizarre!
What I don’t get is that the law is VERY clear about the time lines involved and, according to the law, there is simply not enough time to get the petition re-certified and on the ballot by Nov. 8. But neither side (strangely) is acknowledging that fact.
Attn: ROC. FYI, Mr. Simon is wrong. You can only get a special election if you have 15% or more. More than 10% but less than 15% gets you only the next general election. See 69A-184 in conjunction with 192(b).
thanks for the info Mr Hartnett.
My pleasure. Like you, I have this quaint notion that government is supposed to be of laws, not men. Seems to be a great need for that nowadays. More to come.